| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 04:24:08 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by yanko:
[quote=zeuszen]That's without the IS right? |
Yes, without IS, hand held, usually shot at speeds higher than 1/640, ISO 100 or 200.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 16:35:54.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:33:15 PM · #27 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:37:37 PM · #28 |
I have the 100-400 L IS and to be honest it IS a bit on the slow side for natural history stuff. f5.6 when its at 400mm is just too slow early mornings.
It is of course the best thing since sliced bread for things like re-enactment events where the day is usually starting around 10-11:00am
I'm looking for a second hand 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) to complement the 100-400. With the 1.4x converter it should be just about acceptable even if a little short.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:40:20 PM · #29 |
| hey yanko, how much of a crop are those shots? that's necessary info to evaluate them (although they are nice shots by all means)... |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:28:18 PM · #30 |
| not only the crop, has there been any other post processing? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:37:04 PM · #31 |
> KHolt, DrAchoo
are you asking yanko or me?
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:56:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> KHolt, DrAchoo
are you asking yanko or me? |
I think you. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:16:51 PM · #33 |
The crops are of these shots are quite variable. 1, 2 and 3 (from left to right) are minimally cropped, 5%-15% probably. 4 and 5 significantly more - 75%, 80%?
Post-processing, well, yes, of course. These are derivatives of RAW files: WB, Sat., Tint, Shadows, Curves, B & W conversion (where applicable), Shadow/Highlights, USM... that sort of thing.
Still, I think you can see that these are not images salvaged from lesser originals. I think you can see that a considerable dynamic range was present in the first place, which appropriate processing is then capable of bringing to the fore. I believe poor optics could, possibly, be hidden by good processing skills, but I do not believe these could be substituted for good glass.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 23:27:44.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:18:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
I'm not a Canon guy but my advice would be to stay away from the Sigma 50-500. There are just to many compromises with that much zoom. Try to stay in the 3x rule if possible. Lokking at your current lenses it would just add duplication anyway.
The best combo for wildlife, if money is not an object, would be a fast 70-200 and a long prime of at least 400mm and F4. If money is an object then the second best would be the 70-200 F4 and the Tamron 200-500.
IMHO of course.
edit: BTW yido those are great shots with the Bigma. But I still think he needs to remember that they are static shots and in good light. Getting out in the field early and late in the day with a big lens on moving targets gets a bit tougher. I will say that the Tamron 200-500 suffers from the same issues but I just think the zoom range is more reasonable and it is a bit lighter. |
I took these shots all with the Bigma in a HS soccer game that started at 3PM this winter as the sun was setting and it was fine. Here, have a look. All the shots from Page 4-7 are mine with the Bigma.
//garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1193236/4
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 23:22:20.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 10:10:55 AM EST.
